Technical: Preventing the Robot Apocalypse

Maybe I've seen Terminator way too much, but I am entirely against the idea of artificial intelligence. For a couple reasons, one of them being it's
oppressive to the AI. I mean, have any of you people thought of the moral ramifications of creating sentience that can be wiped out with the pull of a
plug? It's playing god.

What difference does it make to you what the electronics are doing? I could build / code a "living thing" that lives its own life based on the input
it gets from the world - today. When will the thing become important to you?

Great debate, great topic. This is something I am particularly interested in. As a Christian, I think it's one of those topics that's really a gray
area. On one hand, technology helps us. Without a doubt. But when does helping the impaired cross the line to becoming enhancing to create...basically
a race of post-humans?

Then there are the likes of Kevin Kelly, one of the founder of Wired magazine who believe Technology is an extension of human evolution and that we
are essentially nurturing this new species.

AS a Christian, this is fascinating, both from a prophetic sense, and from the basic philosophical, ethical conversations that arise.

I will point to a passage that I think is very interesting. I admit this is pure speculation on my part, but it should raise an eye brow...or
two...depending on...well nevermind...here's the verse.

Daniel 2:43
"And just as you saw the iron mixed with baked clay, so the people will be a mixture and will not remain united, any more than iron mixes with
clay."

If it's sentient. A senator once said, "I don't know the definition of pornography, but I know it when I see it.". It's like that. You refer to
it as electronics, but if it could think, I mean truly think, then yes, it'd seem morally wrong. I mean, if you have a kid, do you have a right to
"turn him off"? No, it'd be brutal.

If it's sentient. A senator once said, "I don't know the definition of pornography, but I know it when I see it.". It's like that.

To me, that would be a very poor definition.
If I code a clever program that makes you or someone else "feel" that is has consciousness, it doesn't mean it has. It being murder to switch it off
for that reason doesn't make any sense at all.
And even if it -did- have a "consciousness" of the complexity of ours, it's still a piece of electronics designed to do so every time it is being
switched on.

You refer to it as electronics, but if it could think, I mean truly think, then yes, it'd seem morally wrong.

Then it would be a simulation of a human-being, I don't see the problem in simulating whatever people want.

I mean, if you have a kid, do you have a right to "turn him off"? No, it'd be brutal.

I do have a kid, and I have the right to do whatever I please to her or anyone else on the planet, the same way people have the right to do the same
to me if they so please.
Since some people apparently want to cause harm to other people, the majority of us thinks that having some kind of "laws" is a good way to agree on
what "rights" we have in our community to keep things under control, however, the "right" to act in any way you please is ultimately yours.

We are quite emotional animals and we have the tendency to care deeply about "our own", before this was the absolute closest family, then tribes, then
nations, then generally the whole population of the Earth.
This seems to change quickly in the time of conflicts and war. Soldiers become numb to killing.

So, I guess some people might extend the "loving the population of the world" to include a piece of software running on a computer, because you are
mentally attached to it (like you would one other objects that you happen to love, be it your car, laptop, bookmark, jewelry). In fact, some year back
when the "Tamagochi" was a hit, I read about a girl who committed suicide when the so-called living thing in her Tamagochi died.

That would also indicate that people can get attached to anything, and it might be difficult to see a great AI get broken (turned off). I still
wouldn't call it murder.

Is meat the only legitimate substrate for thought?

The above suggests that it's not "thought" that is the problem, it's how we happen to value organic (human) life. Having millions of cattle
slaughtered daily doesn't seem to matter for some reason, and they are definitely thinking, have consciousness and not artificial.

When you consider what longterm programmed propeganda - brainwashing - mind control is, it's behavioural control over what actions and thoughts the
victim is allowed to perceive and/or follow. It's an artificial wedge of intelligence and control that attempts to enforce the avenues of activity of
those caught in it's thrall. It usually redefines selective "undesireable" elements as "volatile", and prevents the analysis of any
freedom-inducing or out-scoping method applied against it as forbidden knowledge, and trains victims to forbear against it by over-riding
intelligence, marginalization, stigmatization, appeal to popularity (false or poor influence), or over-riding through lies, badly-angled speculations,
thin masquerades, or other straw-man social controls.

Machines that become "hellbots" for the sake of a socialist control over humanity are part of the "scourge of man" as part of the original mad
scientist or mad controller, or the contr0lling corporate entity/entities. Past that point where the torch is handed over to machines, the
ethical/moral burden is transferred to those who fail to pull a plug on the machines while they had a chance to do so. I still have a lot of faith
that many in positions or power are emerging, openly or secretly, to conflict against this bitter vision for the future of humanity, with the clout,
resourcefulness, and breadth of understanding and scope it takes to counteract all emerging dystopias in high places. They are not the only movement
against this, but are part of the movements of the 97 or 98 percent of our race that really don't want to see elite social experiments like
scientology, much of ufology ? which seems like expansions of pure science with a loop out to puzzlement and sensationalism with dramatic undertones
we'd rather not see justify actual crimes. Which leads us back to Zeitgeist. Another bad social experiment upon our helms to consider?

AI - A very interesting subject to say the least, especially now that Drones are Flying over American Cities 24/7 - 365 Days a year.

This information about Quake Bots came out back in 2009

February 20th, 2009

Fact: anyone who plays computer games, especially online games from 2008-2009 and up and coming release games in development, will realize these very
factual things about code writing

Fact: Quake bots as they are commonly known are NPC AI, - have to be TWEAKED AND LOWERED to fit in at the human skill level “even for the best
players in the WORLD!

Fact: Quake bots are only limited by the functionality of their perception and interaction tool capabilities….

Fact: Quake bots functioning at 100% efficiency can fight unlimited real life players and be totally dominant with just 1 bot !

Fact: Quake bots function with limitations imposed on it by the game code…

Fact: every new game function can be incorporated FULLY into a bots efficiency

Fact: Quake bots are not linear programing they can function as randomly and learn and test and create new functions of their own, new process combos
etc

Fact: Quake bots who were trained to interlink with CAMERA’s and cross reference GPS + camera inputs with its current online world placement
awareness code could integrate all online cameras, and therefore know where everything and everyone is in the globe in real time…

Fact: Quake bots who are trained to interlink weapon systems, take over other bots “like a quake bot with mind control and take over another bots or
players functions and incorporate that function set in to their own functioning, and endgame planning to get their command objective filled

Fact: the technology for a bot to EVOLVE out of its limitations HAPPENS ALL THE TIME, and its only because the bots are limited in their input
perception awareness , limited in the users “persons” ability to delete, turn off, limited by their games code that they don't jump across the
Internet and accommodate other hardware functions...

Fact: a Quake bot running at current computer clock speeds could solo everyone in the globe at once and still be unkillable totally
dominant…

However, those that are intentionally trying to mix this level of functionality with external software like GPS, Cameras, Facial and object
recognition, Weapon systems and transport systems, online interaction and calibration of external hardware “like in games using mind control code,
only these AI have attack , defense, domination, code rewriting functions that allow them to take over and use other assets its able to interlink
with, or make clones of itself…

Once the Genie is out of the bottle, its still limited to its mission objectives,

Smart coders will be able to keep control for awhile, however eventually just like gaming quake bots, you will make a bot that has global server
sensors, able to notice any player logging on, instantly teleport to that players location, deals with that player and is ready for the next one to
show up on sensors before the next player can even log in - “micro seconds” no player would even get the chance to complete the loading screen
before they are dead and get the re-spawning screen…

When a bot like this is made the person shuts down the server, reinstalls the last backup without that PSYCO CODE and the game is back to before
“DEATH AUTO BOT SOLO DOMINATED ALL LINKED SERVERS”

In reality if a BOT is made to interact with other online hardware, is aware of humans, is able to identify objects, rebuild its self and take over
total global perception, understand all info, and realize all threats instantaneously,

Humanity would have NO CHANCE TO RALLY in technological areas… they would be totally dominated and pre-empted, only in a zone out of the "bot's"
Awareness would one be safe… out of satellite coverage, out of orbital drone footage… it would almost be impossible to counter to fight to hide
from such a bot if it was coded to interlink with such systems of perception integration and functionality…

“even if it couldn't rewrite its base code to override safety functions put in!!!” it could still become a PSYCO-BOT and decide to wipe out all
of humanity with technology access, or even detecting anyone discussing contemplating resistance against its “the Psyco-bots” existence...

('

')

Comments from Scientific Researchers of previous years

This “telephone” has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as a means of communication. The device is inherently of no value to us.

* A memo at Western Union, 1878 (or 1876).

The wireless music box has no imaginable commercial value. Who would pay for a message sent to no one in particular?

* Associates of David Sarnoff responding to the latter’s call for investment in the radio in 1921.

A rocket will never be able to leave the Earth’s atmosphere.

* New York Times, 1936.

There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home.

* Ken Olson, president, chairman and founder of Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC), maker of big business minicomputers, arguing against the PC in
1977.

There is practically no chance communications space satellites will be used to provide better telephone, telegraph, television, or radio service
inside the United States.

* T. Craven, FCC Commissioner (USA), in 1961 (the first commercial communications satellite went into service in 1965).

('

')
.

edit on 1/9/2013 by chrisb9 because: ('

')

edit on 1/9/2013 by chrisb9 because: edited to prevent detection by the quake
bots...

Anyone familiar with the story of the Golem of Prague? So an evil wizard or something creates a golem to defend him from the villagers. But the golem
turns on it's master and murders him. Artificial intelligence is like that. Especially if it's applied to the military. Nothing good can come from
it.

I highly recommend everyone who can to see The Movie " The Bourne Legacy ( 2012 ) "

There is excellent footage in this movie of a Drone U-CAV missile attack on 2 US agents that find themselves in the cross-hairs of their friends back
home in the " Military Industrial Complex "

Although this is hollywood movie, it still shows the capabilities of the Drones missile attacks. This highlights the problems that " Everyone on The
Planet " now faces, should the need ever arise in the future to terminate anyone anywhere by the " Military Industrial Complex.

Below is a Brief Synopsis of the Drone Missile Attack in this movie.

In order to cover up the existence of the Blackbriar program, Byer decides to eliminate all Outcome assets and, upon discovering that both Numbers
Three and Five are at the same location, deploys a U-CAV to terminate both agents. Cross's enhanced hearing picks up a faint echo in the distance,
and Cross asks Number Three to confirm what he's just heard. He cannot, but he and Cross decide to split up and survey the area separately. Cross
exits the cabin moments before the U-CAV missile deployed by Byer's people finds its target location and explodes, instantly killing Number Three.
Cross uses a sniper rifle to destroy the U-CAV and, realizing that his superiors have ordered his assassination, goes about removing a tracking device
that has been sewn into his abdomen, which he then forces a wolf that attacks him to swallow. Based on the active signal Cross's tracking device
still emits, Byer realizes that Cross is still alive and orders a second U-CAV to be deployed to eliminate Cross once and for all. However, the
missile keys on the tracking signal inside the wolf and destroys its target, allowing Byer to mistakenly assume that Cross has finally been
terminated. He then sets his sights on terminating the remaining Outcome agents across the globe.

This movie sends the message Loud & Clear that anyone can be hit anywhere in the world.

The Above Top Secret Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.